Search This Blog

M.V.Act - Fixation of income - LIC premium not to be deducted from his net income while fixing net income of deceased - when dependents are 5- deduction should 1/4th of income - their Lordships held that Whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to be deducted from the claimants' compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? Answering the above question, the Apex Court held that the LIC policy amount was not a pecuniary advantage, liable for deduction. It observed thus: The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual. In K. Pushpalathas case (3 supra) also, this High Court expressed a similar view in respect of the contributions made by a deceased employee towards P.F, group insurance and like. a) Since the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not liable for deduction, compensation has to be reassessed. The net annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- towards income tax). Then multiplier is concerned, it is true that in Sarla Vermas case (4 supra), 15 is provided for the persons in the age group of the deceased, whereas the Tribunal selected multiplier 14. Since the difference being only one digit, multiplier 14 is accepted. Then deduction towards personal expenditure is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. However, in Sarla Vermas case (4 supra), Apex Court laid down that 1/4th has to be deducted when number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. = M.A.C.M.A No.516 of 2009 07-07-2014 Smt. Bandameedi Suvarna and others.... Appellants A. Jairuddin and another.. Respondents = 2014 -July-Part- http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11600

M.V.Act - Fixation of income - LIC premium not to be deducted from his net income while fixing net income of deceased - when dependents are 5 , deduction should 1/4th of income - their Lordships held that Whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to be deducted from the claimants' compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? Answering the above question, the Apex Court held that the LIC policyamount was not a pecuniary advantage, liable for deduction. It observed thus: The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensationcomputed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without makingany contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurancepolicy is contractual. In K. Pushpalathas case (3 supra) also, this High Court expressed a similar view in respect of the contributions made by a deceased employee towards P.F, group insurance and like.a) Since the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not liable for deduction,compensation has to be reassessed. The net annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- towards income tax).Then multiplier is concerned, it is true that in Sarla Vermas case(4 supra), 15 is provided for the persons in the age group of the deceased,whereas the Tribunal selected multiplier 14. Since the difference beingonly one digit, multiplier 14 is accepted. Then deduction towards personalexpenditure is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. However, in SarlaVermas case (4 supra), Apex Court laid down that 1/4th has to be deductedwhen number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. =

The claimants who are the wife,
minor son and daughter and parents of the deceased laid the claim in
O.P.No.344 of 1998
against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and
insurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation
under different heads.=
the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,70,000/- as
compensation under different heads as follows:

Loss of dependency Rs. 8,40,000-00
Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 15,000-00
Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000-00
---------------------
Total Rs. 8,70,000-00
---------------------
Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants preferred the instant
appeal.Appeal against R.1 was dismissed for default on15.12.2008. However, in view of the fact that R.1 remained ex parte andsuffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence will not have any effect inthe appeal in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others =Whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to bededucted from the claimants' compensation receivable under theMotor Vehicles Act, 1939?
Answering the above question,
the Apex Court held that the LIC policy
amount was not a pecuniary advantage, liable for deduction. It observed
thus:
The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he
receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation
computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of
accident.
As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation
under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making
any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount
received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of
the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount
under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have
said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is
statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance
policy is contractual.
In K. Pushpalathas case (3 supra) also, this High Court expressed a
similar view in respect of the contributions made by a deceased employee
towards P.F, group insurance and like.a) Since the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not liable for deduction,compensation has to be reassessed. The net annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- towards income tax). Then multiplier is concerned, it is true that in Sarla Vermas case
(4 supra), 15 is provided for the persons in the age group of the deceased,
whereas the Tribunal selected multiplier 14. Since the difference being
only one digit, multiplier 14 is accepted. Then deduction towards personal
expenditure is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. However, in Sarla
Vermas case (4 supra), Apex Court laid down that 1/4th has to be deducted
when number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the instant case,
dependants being 5 in number, 1/4th is to be deducted. So the compensation
for loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,02,500/- (Rs.1,05,000/- x 14 x 3/4th).
Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants under different heads is
detailed as below:
Loss of dependency Rs.11,02,500-00
Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 15,000-00
Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000-00
---------------------
Total Rs.11,32,500-00
---------------------
So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,62,500/- (Rs.11,32,500/-
minus Rs.8,70,000/-).
9) In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and ordered as follows:
a) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,62,500/- with proportionate
costs.
b) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a
from 26.02.2009 (i.e, when the delay in filing the appeal was
condoned as per orders in CMA MP No.1249 of 2003) till the date
of realization.
c) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount
within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which
execution can be taken out against them.
d) No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.2014 -July-Part- http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11600
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

JUDGMENT:
This appeal is an offshoot of the award dated 24.08.2001 in OP No.344
of 1998 passed by the MACT-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Medak at Sangareddy (for short the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal, for
the death of one B. Rajeshwar, awarded compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- and
his disgruntled LRs. preferred the instant MACMA.
2) The facts in brief are thus:
a) The deceased was said to aged 36 years, a MBA Graduate and doing variety of businesses like commission agency, running oil and dal mill andreal estate etc., besides holding the posts Director, District Cooperative Bank,Medak, Chairman, Eppepally Cooperative Society, President, GrainMerchants Association, Zaheerabad and President, Adarsha Vidyalaya Zaheerabad to name a few.While-so, on 19.07.1998 when the deceased
along with his friends was going from Zaheerabad to Hyderabad in
connection with his business in his car bearing No. AP 9 F 3700 and when
they crossed Pothireddypally cross roads on N.H.No.9 at about 11-30 am, a
lorry bearing No. KA 01 9104 came in the opposite direction being driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car and thereby, the
deceased who was driving the car sustained grievous injuries and died on the
spot and other passengers suffered injuries. It was averred that the lorrydriver was solely responsible for the accident and due to sudden death of thedeceased, his family became forlorned. The claimants who are the wife,minor son and daughter and parents of the deceased laid the claim inO.P.No.344 of 1998 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner andinsurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensationunder different heads.
b) Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
c) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company denying the petition averments,
mainly contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the
deceased himself and not the lorry driver and further, the lorry driver had no
valid and effective driving licence. Incidentally, R.2 denied the age,
avocation and income of the deceased and urged to put the claimants in strict
proof of the same. Finally, R.2 contended that the claim is highly excessive
and arbitrary and liable for dismissal.
d) During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were
marked on behalf of claimants. Policy copy filed by R.2 was marked as
Ex.B.1.
e) Award shows, issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal believing the
evidence of PW.3K. Ravi Kumar, a passenger in the car and an eye witness
to the accident coupled with Exs.A.1FIR and Ex.A.2charge sheet, has
held that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident. Issue No.2 the
compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,70,000/- ascompensation under different heads as follows: Loss of dependency Rs. 8,40,000-00 Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 15,000-00 Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000-00--------------------- Total Rs. 8,70,000-00--------------------- Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants preferred the instantappeal.
3) Heard arguments of Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for
appellants/claimants and Sri E. Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for R.2/
Insurance Company. Appeal against R.1 was dismissed for default on15.12.2008. However, in view of the fact that R.1 remained ex parte andsuffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence will not have any effect inthe appeal in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs.Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others .
4 a) Challenging the award, learned counsel for appellants firstly argued
that the Tribunal committed error in fixing the annual income of the deceased
only at Rs.1,20,000/- despite claimants projecting cogent evidence in the
form of his income tax returns and other record showing much higher
income.
b) Secondly, he argued that while fixing the annual income at
Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal committed another blunder by deductingRs.5,000/- towards LIC premium on the premise that the family of deceasedwould get benefit i.e, policy amount from the Insurance Company. Learned
counsel took a strong objection to this observation and argued that the
probable LIC policy amount receivable by his family has nothing to do with
his income since the policy amount is not a pecuniary advantage that accrued
directly and solely out of the accidental death of deceased in a motor vehicle
accident and hence same is not liable for deduction. On this point, he relied
on the following decisions:
1) Mrs. Helen C.Rebello and others vs. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and another
2) State of A.P vs. K. Pushpalatha .
c) Thirdly, he argued that though the Tribunal was right in deducting 1/3rdfrom the gross income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure,however, in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in asubsequent decision reported in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi TransportCorporation , 1/4th only has to be deducted since the number of dependentsof the deceased is 5.
d) Fourthly, he contended that as per Sarla Vermas case (4 supra), the
correct multiplier for a person in the age group of deceased is 15 but not
14 as chosen by the Tribunal.
He thus prayed to revise the compensation considering his above
submissions.
5 a) Per contra, opposing the appeal, learned counsel for R.2/ Insurance
Company firstly argued that the Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income
of the deceased as Rs.1,20,000/- by taking an average from the income tax
returns produced by the claimants and hence there is no need to review the
same.
b) In respect of other arguments raised by the appellants also he submitted
that the findings of the Tribunal were right and hence there is no need to
enhance the compensation.
c) Finally, he argued that in this case there was some delay in filing theappeal and hence if compensation is enhanced, interest on such enhancedamount may be ordered from the date of registration of main appeal only.
6) In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination in this
appeal is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable
or needs enhancement?
7) POINT: The first argument is concerned, as per claimants, the deceased
was 36 years old and he was a MBA Graduate and doing different businesses
viz., commission agency, oil and dal mill business and real estate business
besides officiating as Director of District Cooperative Bank, Medak,
Chairman of Eppepally Cooperative Society, President of Grain Merchants
Association, Zaheerbad and President of Adarsha Vidyalaya Zaheerabad and
that he was earning not less than Rs.20,000/- p.m. Be that it may, in proof of
his educational qualification and income, the claimants produced Exs.A.5,
A.6 and A.8 to A.18. Ex.A.8 is the SSC marks certificate showing his date of
birth as 09.09.1962, whereas Ex.A.9 is his MBA certificate. So regarding his
educational qualification, there is no demur.
a) Then coming to his income, Ex.A.5 is the order passed by the I.T.O on
returns filed by the deceased for the Assessment year 1997-98 (financial year
1996-97) whereby excess tax paid was refunded. The total income shown by
the deceased was Rs.1,14,590/-. Then Ex.A.6 is the I.T returns for the
financial year 1997-98 (Assessment year 1998-99) showing his income as
Rs.1,10,000/-. Ex.A.10 is the certificate issued by Secretary, PACS,
Eppepally stating that the deceased officiated as President of PACS,
Eppepally and Director of DCC Bank, Medak during 1995-98. Ex.A.11 is
the certificate issued by General Secretary, Grain and Seeds Merchants
Association, Zaheerabad stating that the deceased served as President from
1995-98. Ex.A.12 is another certificate issued by Secretary, Adarsha
Vidyalaya stating that the deceased served as President during 1995-98.
Ex.A.13 is an agreement of sale under which the deceased and some others
purported to have purchased agricultural land. Whereas Exs.A.14 to A.16
relate to the assessment orders and self-assessment made by the deceased for
the assessment year 1996-97. As per Ex.A.16, his total income was assessed
at Rs.1,26,990/-. Ex.A.17 is the extract of accounts of Venkatesh Industries,
Zaheerabad. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, it does not show the
interest of the deceased in that concern. Ex.A.18 is the challan for the
deposit of income tax for the assessment year 1997-98.
b) When the above record is perused, Exs.A.10 to A.12 would only show
the social status of the deceased but not the income and hence they are not
useful. When the I.T returns and orders covered by other exhibits are perused,
as rightly observed by the Tribunal, they would not exceed the average
income of Rs.1,20,000/- and so the Tribunal was right in fixing his annual
income as Rs.1,20,000/- for the relevant period.
8) The second argument of the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in
deducting Rs.5,000/- towards LIC premium. I find force in this argument.
As rightly argued, payment of LIC premium and subsequent receiving of LIC
policy amount due to death of deceased have nothing to do with the
accidental death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Hence the
policy amount cannot be said to be a pecuniary advantage received only on
account of the accidental death of the deceased. This point was clearly laid
down by Honble Apex Court in Helen C. Rebellos case (2 supra). In that
caseApex Court was dealing with the question as toWhether the life insurance money of the deceased is to bededucted from the claimants' compensation receivable under theMotor Vehicles Act, 1939? Answering the above question, the Apex Court held that the LIC policyamount was not a pecuniary advantage, liable for deduction. It observedthus:The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which hereceives the amount has no co-relation to the compensationcomputed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account ofaccident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensationunder the Act is on account of the injury or death without makingany contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amountreceived through contributions of the insured be deducted out ofthe amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we havesaid the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act isstatutory while the amount receivable under the life insurancepolicy is contractual. In K. Pushpalathas case (3 supra) also, this High Court expressed asimilar view in respect of the contributions made by a deceased employeetowards P.F, group insurance and like.a) Since the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not liable for deduction,compensation has to be reassessed. The net annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- towards income tax). Then multiplier is concerned, it is true that in Sarla Vermas case(4 supra), 15 is provided for the persons in the age group of the deceased,whereas the Tribunal selected multiplier 14. Since the difference beingonly one digit, multiplier 14 is accepted. Then deduction towards personalexpenditure is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. However, in SarlaVermas case (4 supra), Apex Court laid down that 1/4th has to be deductedwhen number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the instant case,dependants being 5 in number, 1/4th is to be deducted. So the compensationfor loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,02,500/- (Rs.1,05,000/- x 14 x 3/4th).Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants under different heads isdetailed as below: Loss of dependency Rs.11,02,500-00 Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 15,000-00 Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000-00--------------------- Total Rs.11,32,500-00--------------------- So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,62,500/- (Rs.11,32,500/-minus Rs.8,70,000/-).9) In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and ordered as follows:a) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,62,500/- with proportionatecosts.b) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a from 26.02.2009 (i.e, when the delay in filing the appeal wascondoned as per orders in CMA MP No.1249 of 2003) till the dateof realization.c) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing whichexecution can be taken out against them.d) No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall standclosed.
_________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 07.07.2014

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …